Supreme Court slams NMC’s ‘both hands intact’ rule for MBBS admission, says it glorifies ‘ableism’

The court said the prescription of “both hands intact” was “completely antithetical” to Article 41 of the Constitution, the principles enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the salutary provisions of the RPwD Act.

“It also indicates a classification which is overbroad and glorifies ‘ableism’. It propagates that persons with typical abilities and with faculties similar to what the majority may have or somehow superior. This is precisely what the Directive Principles of State Policy, the United Nations Convention and the RPwD Act abhor,” the court said.

“The prescription such as ‘both hands intact…’ reeks of ableism and has no place in a statutory regulation. In fact, it has the effect of denuding the rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the RPwD Act and makes a mockery of the principle of reasonable accommodation,” the court said.

The appellant, Anmol, sat for NEET-UG in May 2024 and secured rank 2,462 in the Persons with Disability (PwD) category. But he was rendered ineligible to pursue a medical course by the Government Medical College, Chandigarh, the designated disability certification centre.

Anmol moved the Punjab and Haryana HC, which, September 23, 2024, dismissed his plea on the grounds that the court “cannot substitute the opinion of the experts in the field of disability.”

On appeal, the SC asked AIIMS, New Delhi, to constitute a committee to examine as to whether the disability suffered by the petitioner would come in the way of his pursuing medical studies

Five of the six members of the committee were of the view that Anmol “is not suitable to pursue undergraduate medical education program (MBBS) which is a competency based program of 5-and-a-half years, including one year of compulsory rotatory internship.” They said “the current NMC guidelines perhaps need revision” but that with respect to these, “this medical board is not able to declare the candidate fit to join MBBS.”

The sixth member, Dr Satendra Singh, gave a separate detailed assessment that said Anmol “can successfully navigate the MBBS course with clinical accommodations and assistive technologies.”

Based on the report, the SC on December 12, 2024 “found the appellant fit for pursuing the MBBS course” and directed that he “should be admitted in the Government Medical College, Sirohi, Rajasthan against a seat reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) (OBC).”

Recording the reasons, the court said there cannot be a “one size fits all” approach” and that “flexibility in answering individual needs and requirements is an essential component of reasonable accommodation.”

“In our considered view, the correct approach is the one that Dr. Satendra Singh has adopted viz.— to not bar a candidate at the threshold but grant the candidate the choice after completing the MBBS course, to decide whether he wishes to specialize in a non-surgical or medical branch or continue as a general duty medical officer. As rightly set out by Dr. Satendra Singh, it will be unfair to presume incompetence at the threshold without first providing an opportunity to the candidate and ensuring the availability of accommodations and assistive products,” said the court.

The court said that the report of the other five members of the panel had not indicated how the functional assessment of the appellant was carried out and were “completely silent” on how the appellant failed in it. “Accepting the report of five members and denying the admission of the appellant would be upholding the theory of ableism which we are not prepared to do,” it said.

The court also posted the matter for hearing on March 3, 2025 “to consider whether the NMC has formulated the revised guidelines in accordance with the judgments of this court.”